Search results
Results From The WOW.Com Content Network
Napue v. Illinois, 360 U.S. 264 (1959), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court held that the knowing use of false testimony by a prosecutor in a criminal case violates the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution, even if the testimony affects only the credibility of the witness and does not directly relate to the innocence or guilt of ...
In strict cases, when an illegal action is used by the police or the prosecution to gain any incriminating result, all evidence whose recovery stemmed from the illegal action—this evidence is known as "fruit of the poisonous tree"—can be thrown out from a jury (or be grounds for a mistrial if too much information has been irrevocably revealed).
The exception in some instances allows for the introduction of evidence gathered during illegal searches, so long as a judge approved a search warrant, even if the warrant shouldn’t have been ...
Tampering with evidence is closely related to the legal issue of spoliation of evidence, which is usually the civil law or due process version of the same concept (but may itself be a crime). Tampering with evidence is also closely related to obstruction of justice and perverting the course of justice , and these two kinds of crimes are often ...
The quantum of evidence is the amount of evidence needed; the quality of proof is how reliable such evidence should be considered. Important rules that govern admissibility concern hearsay , authentication , relevance , privilege , witnesses , opinions , expert testimony , identification and rules of physical evidence .
The presumption of innocence is a legal principle that every person accused of any crime is considered innocent until proven guilty.Under the presumption of innocence, the legal burden of proof is thus on the prosecution, which must present compelling evidence to the trier of fact (a judge or a jury).
But U.S. District Judge Christopher Cooper reduced the sentence to six years, the first time a Jan. 6 defendant was resentenced under the high court's ruling on obstruction.
To the extent the constitution may protect the right of a convicted person to collaterally challenge a conviction based on new evidence of actual innocence, that remedy likely would take the form of coram nobis, a remedy that, historically, demanded proof of an extraordinary circumstance of innocence based on newly discovered evidence.